FS5: Canon to e mount adaptors... I'm confused

I

Ivor C

Active member
I own a FS5 and various Nikon and Sony lenses. All my Nikon glass mounts on my FS5 via dumb adaptors (Speedbooster and Commlite), so no electronics. Going forward I intend to start purchasing Canon glass. My hope is I'll get back some/all of the standard electronic features. In order of priority these are:

1) Image stabilisation
2) Auto iris
3) Auto focus

Leaving aside arguments over whether I need 'auto' anything (I know I do...sometimes) which adaptor would folks recommend for Canon to e-mount?

I'm particularly interested in the degree of compromise specific adaptors will have on the above. For example will the image stabilisation on a Canon 24-105 f4 be as good via a smart adaptor as on a Canon body? Same for the other two.

Whilst I acknowledge this adaptor question comes up a lot, I'm still foggy on what 100% works (per feature) and what is a compromise or no go.
 
Commlite doesn't do anything (FS7 and Tokina 150-500 zoom with Canon mount)
Metabones 4 does some AF and sends info to the footage with this combination

There is a lot to improve in adaptorworld.

In my experience: Commlite is a No go and Metabones a compromise.
i'm stuck with cheap dumb adaptors.
 
Ivor C said:
I'm particularly interested in the degree of compromise specific adaptors will have on the above. For example will the image stabilisation on a Canon 24-105 f4 be as good via a smart adaptor as on a Canon body? Same for the other two.
Click to expand...

I use the Metabones speedbooster to mount my Canon glass onto the FS7. In-lens image stabilisation works identically with this setup as it does when mounted 'natively' on my 5Dmk3. Auto iris also works fine (I use 'advanced' mode, which gives more useable iris functionality in general, at the expense of not reporting zoom (as a %) and focus (in ft/m) states onto the FS7 viewfinder). The auto iris is not smooth however, just as it would be on a Canon body, it's 'steppy'.

As far as I know, all in-lens IS systems are effectively self-contained, and only need power to be transmitted via the adaptor, rather than actually communicating and receiving input back from the camera.

As for AF functionality, it 'works' (or at least tries to), but so poorly as to be pointless. I believe that the only really useable AF lenses on the FS7/5 are native Sony E-mounts.

Cheers,

jason
 
And perhaps also avoid still lenses - and use manual or cinema style lenses if you need smooth iris control without the electronic "steppiness".
 
The Sony 18-110 f4 will be available next month for 3.5k it will have manual everything and IS and all auto functions.
Just get that or if canon is your long term investment the 18-80 cn-e for 5k also there are the new sigma cine zooms at 4K a pop if you don't want to spend more on the Zeiss lwz.3 or the angenieux Ez's.
A few years ago the options were different. But right now I cannot understand why anyone would waste their money on photo lenses.
 
JPNola said:
His Fs5 has electronic ND. Is electronic ND also "steppy"?
Click to expand...

No, it's not, it's as smooth as auto iris on a Sony lens. The only issue is in low light, when you don't want to flick it in since the minimum ND is 1/4, thus adversely affecting your low light exposure.
 
icarusfilm said:
The Sony 18-110 f4 will be available next month for 3.5k it will have manual everything and IS and all auto functions.
Just get that or if canon is your long term investment the 18-80 cn-e for 5k also there are the new sigma cine zooms at 4K a pop if you don't want to spend more on the Zeiss lwz.3 or the angenieux Ez's.
A few years ago the options were different. But right now I cannot understand why anyone would waste their money on photo lenses.
Click to expand...

Sorry to say so, and no offence meant, but I think that you're taking your own personal preferences and projecting them onto 'everyone/anyone'.

Given how many different purposes people use their cameras for, and the wildly different shooting contexts/priorities those entail, it's a MASSIVE over-simplification to say that they'd ALL be best served by a high- (or even mid-) end cine zoom. If you read News Shooter's review of the Sigma cine zooms, you'll find out that they're apparently optically identical to the stills versions. They have advantages in some contexts (namely 'on set' with a significant crew/kit support, and a limited range of shots that need to be 'just so'), BUT they also have TONS of disadvantages for the solo-operator. They're A LOT heavier and larger; the long focus throw (whilst lovely for a focus puller), is actually harder to use for a solo-op; not to mention their significantly greater price.

Even the forthcoming 18-80 canon is not without it's drawbacks. I must admit that I'm considering picking one up, and will certainly be interested to try it, but it would definitely only be 'coming with me' on certain shoots, as I'll be able to do my job better with my beloved Tamron 24-70 STILLS lens in a lot of situations.

I'm not trying to chastise you, but I do think that when offering advice to someone on a forum, it pays to consider their perspective/situation as much as, if not more than, your own.

Cheers! :-)

jason
 
Look, if shooting professionally is what you do there is nothing that is more reliable than a fully manual lens that has been designed with capturing motion in mind- it's not really an "opinion". Some electronic lenses are useful in niche situations but overall a proper lens is what works best. I'm sure that in a pinch an experienced surgeon can operate with a box cutter and some pliers without us from now on calling hammer a medical instrument. I am giving advise as a professional, also you have to be aware that once cine zooms and lenses become more affordable and smaller, lighter -more knowledgeable i.e. The clients you want to attract will start expecting them. It's just the nature of things.
 
For me - Commlite on an FS7. Works just fine on all of my EF-fit lenses (ie, in my world, that's just IS and iris control - I don't use any auto functions):

Tokina 11-16/2.8
Canon 16-35/4 IS
Canon 24-105/4
Canon 70-200/2.8
Canon 100-400/3.5<

Regarding IS, yes all of my stabilised lenses function just as well on the FS7 as when on a Canon body.

I'm generally only interested in stills lenses, as I'm almost always using image stabilisation.

The new hybrid offerings from Sony and Canon look interesting, but overpriced to my taste, for what they offer over their stills siblings.

My 2p.
 
Ivor C said:
No, it's not, it's as smooth as auto iris on a Sony lens. The only issue is in low light, when you don't want to flick it in since the minimum ND is 1/4, thus adversely affecting your low light exposure.
Click to expand...

Shame that it isn't like those windows that go from clear to tinted. If it were it could be left in place all the time and when you wanted ND you would simply ease it in.

I had no idea that electronic ND is min 1/4. That makes it less of the game changer than I thought it was. Knowing that, the Fs7 II isn't quite as appealing to me. At first I was glad to see the locking E-mount upgrade but then it occurred to me that it would slow down lens changes and isn't really something I needed. The non-locking e-mount works just fine and hasn't presented any issue for me. I wonder if it possible to leave the locking mount unlocked. That is, mount the lens but don't twist the flange mechanism that tightens the mount.

Anyone know what type of PL to E-mount adapter is on the camera in this clip, if it is in fact a PL adapter?:


 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top